Re: [manet] MANET meeting at IETF85

["JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Jiazi,

Would you mind sharing the level of interop testing ?

Thanks.

JP.

On Oct 13, 2012, at 10:45 PM, Jiazi YI wrote:

Hi Cedric,

I think I have answered you this question before in a private mail.

As long as you asked, let me just repeat it again:

Those are tests aimed for interoperability, not for performance.

So the main purpose is to:
o Verify the function/messages exchanges of the protocol, so as to find bugs and improve the specification.
o Make sure that the document is well written such as independent/interoperable implementations can be developed.

Those tests are to make sure that the protocol can be implemented independently without consulting the original developers of the protocol.
So I won't say this interop test is related to the definition of the protocol scope.

best

Jiazi



On Oct 13, 2012, at 8:16 PM, C Chauvenet <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi Ulrich,

Thank you for your answer, see inline.

Le 13 oct. 2012 à 17:33, Ulrich Herberg a écrit :

Hi Cédric,

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 7:03 AM, C Chauvenet <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi all,

I agree with Teco that the message from the chair (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13305.html) is a good move.
In particular that "the LLN needs to be deemphasized as the primary purpose if adopted as manet".


I agree.




However http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clausen-lln-loadng-05 says in its introduction that :


The LLN On-demand Ad hoc Distance-vector Routing Protocol - Next
   Generation (LOADng) is a routing protocol, derived from AODV
   [RFC3561<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3561>] and extended for use in Low power and Lossy Networks
   (LLNs).


The introduction will be largely changed in the next revision.



So, removing LLNs' related material on this draft could get back to AODV which is already RFC 3561<tel:3561>. So what is the improvement ?


That is not true. There are many improvements from what we learned from AODV, and which has been integrated when designing the protocol (see below)



>From what I understand, the LOADng purpose should be a new version of AODV addressing some of the points suggested by the MANET chair such as "improvements in heterogeneity support, simplification where sensible, improved control plane flooding, better IPv6 support, and a eventually clear border gateway specification".


That is exactly what LOADng does (and that will be clearer in the next revision). It allows for improved flooding (e.g. using SMF/MPR flooding), it has improved IPv6 support, it is more flexible through the use of RFC5444, it is simplified as several items from AODV (such as iRREP, precursor list) have been removed, it is easier to secure using the security architecture based on RFC5444/RFC6622 and by avoiding iRREPs. We still need to work in the clearer border gateway specification.




In short : LLNs constraints and challenges should not be adressed by LOADng, but LOADng could improve the AODV original specification for MANET networks.


As one (out of many) use cases are LLNs, experience from these deployments should be integrated.

The distinction between MANET and LLNs seems to be vanish here.
This brings us back to the summer discussion between what is a MANET and what is a LLN that did not really fostered on a consensus.
WG chairs could help there, as it is their related scope.
My vision is that LLNs are more constrained than MANET for the following criterion : Power consumption, Loss of the media, Computation capability, Throughput.
What do you think ?
My vision is also that the level of constraints of LLNs should not be considered in a MANET protocol.
Do you agree ?

I'm trying to figure out if LOADng is efficient over a mains-powered computer using Wifi, a 8K/48K RAM/ROM device,  or both (cover such a wide range would be magical !).

I see in the interop report http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lavenu-lln-loadng-interoperability-report-02 in section 3 :


The LOADng routing protocol was run over UDP and
   IPv4.  Either Ethernet or 802.11 wireless network was used in the
   test.


The description of the participants are in section 4.3 :

1 - LIX ) : It
      consists of approximately 6000 lines of JAVA code running in a Mac
      OS environment

2 - Hitachi1) : It consists of 1589 lines of C

      code running in the Hitachi proprietary micro OS environment
      embedded in a 16MHz H8 micro processor.

3 - Hitachi2) : It consists of 1987 lines of C++ code

      running in a Mac OS environment.

So my first guess is that LOADng is suitable for what I called "mains-powered computer using Wifi" ?


But since the reactive MANET protocol is a MANET protocol, there will be many other use cases which we also address in the draft. We have learned from the experience with AODV (and there is plenty, just Google Scholar for AODV), and I think that many of those learnings are integrated already in LOADng.

Best regards
Ulrich





Is my understanding correct ?


Best,


Cédric.

Le 12 oct. 2012 à 17:54, Teco Boot a écrit :

I assume the authors take the guidance from our chair, posted in:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13305.html

If so, I do not see a reason not to discuss LOADng.
And yes, I am with Stan we will *not* discuss LLN topics in MANET meetings.

Teco

Op 12 okt. 2012, om 17:38 heeft Ulrich Herberg het volgende geschreven:

Hi,

(speaking on my own, not to representing the LOADng authors).

As was pointed out before, we often have discussed items that were not WG documents, usually at the end of the meeting, to make sure that there is enough time for WG items. I also agree with what Stan said: MANET should not be standardizing documents that are mainly focused on LLNs; however, a document that is focused on MANETS, and as a matter of fact is also used in LLN deployments should be acceptable, in my opinion.

We are currently finalizing some internal discussions between the authors of LOADng, and I think that there will be an email to the list on that regards in the next few days. Abdussalam, being against presentation of something that has not even been proposed yet is premature and pointless, in my opinion.

Best regards
Ulrich

On Oct 12, 2012, at 7:15, "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

I think you are in violent agreement. The current LOADng draft is (IIRC) aimed at LLNs, so Teco is saying unless there's a new MANET-oriented version it shouldn't be discussed, and you are saying it won't be discussed.

--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: [phone]<tel:%2B44%201245%20242194> |  Fax: [phone]<tel:%2B44%201245%20242124>
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> | http://www.baesystems.com<http://www.baesystems.com/>

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687


-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Ratliff (sratliff) [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: 12 October 2012 15:12
To: Teco Boot
Cc: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> List; Bo Berry (boberry)
Subject: Re: [manet] MANET meeting at IETF85

----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------

On Oct 12, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Teco Boot wrote:

On July 31th, our chair provided guidance on handling LOADng.
It shows the way forward.

I'm looking forward to an draft-author-manet-loadng-00 draft, submitted before next Monday.
If there is no such draft, and little time to discuss non-wg drafts, we should not discuss an lln draft in our meeting in Atlanta.

One (not too) fine point - we (the MANET WG) will *not* be discussing an LLN draft. At any time. That would be a charter violation - LLN's are defined and worked in ROLL. We are discussing MANET reactive protocols.

Stan


I'm OK on discussions on how to fulfill our charter item on a reactive protocol.

Teco


Op 12 okt. 2012, om 15:19 heeft Dearlove, Christopher (UK) het volgende geschreven:

We have often discussed things not yet accepted by the WG, it can be a step towards getting them accepted.

That's not a comment for or against LOADng, discussing LOADng, or adopting LOADng, just an observation on what has happened in the past.

--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: [phone]<tel:%2B44%201245%20242194> |  Fax: [phone]<tel:%2B44%201245%20242124>
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> | http://www.baesystems.com<http://www.baesystems.com/>

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Bo Berry
Sent: 12 October 2012 13:40
To: Abdussalam Baryun; <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> List; Bo Berry
Subject: Re: [manet] MANET meeting at IETF85

----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------

Looking at the MANET WG Documents page, LOADng is not on the list. So until LOADng is accepted by the WG, gotta agree with Abdussalam, no need to discuss it in the little time we have for the work we've already accepted.

How does this fit into the WG Charter?

-Bo


Active Internet-Drafts
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-03    Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-19    Definition of Managed Objects for the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol
draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-02    Using Integrity Check Values and Timestamps For Router Admittance in NHDP
draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-16    The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2
draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-metrics-rationale-01    Link Metrics for the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Routing
draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-04    Definition of Managed Objects for the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol



On Oct 12, 2012, at 7:39 AM, Bo Berry wrote:

I've seen a number of emails on the alias but not sure LOADng
has been accepted by the WG.  Is LOADng asking to be a MANET WG
draft?

-Bo


On Oct 12, 2012, at 5:34 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

Please note that I strongly object any including of LOADng draft in the Agenda.
The document is not for MANET, was already presented before, and the
authors are not discussing on ietf lists of any progress. The draft is
not reasonable for the WG, if it is not discussed on the MANET list.

I got no reasonable reply to all my efforts, the last as:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13448.html

AB
On 10/9/12, Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi,

the MANET WG will meet on Wednesday, Nov. 7 from 1pm to 2.30pm in Salon A.
If you intend to present something, please send a request to the chairs.

Best regards
Ulrich
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein



_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein



_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


<image001.jpg>
Cédric CHAUVENET
Ph.D Student
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Direct Line :   [phone]<tel:%2B33%280%294%2098%2001%2035%2081>
Mobile :          [phone]<tel:%2B33%280%296%2030%2021%2014%2091>

Standard :   [phone]<tel:%2B33%280%294%2098%2001%2060%2005>
Fax :             [phone]<tel:%2B33%280%294%2094%2014%2010%2080>

1766 Chemin de la Planquette
83130 LA GARDE – France
www.watteco.com<http://www.watteco.com/>


<image002.gif>
 Before printing think about environment and costs

This Message may contain confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email immediately. Please conduct your own virus checks before opening any attachment as Watteco does not guarantee the integrity of this email or attached files has been maintained nor this communication is free of viruses, interceptions or interference. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Watteco. Watteco shall not be responsible nor liable for the improper and incomplete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system.





_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet